Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Everything about gaming, walkthroughs, discussions, news, reviews ..etc

Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Thu May 15, 2014 2:21 am

Most people are hyped for the game only because they've been led to by Ubisoft by their false advertising.
It's nothing new that graphics have been toned down ALOT since the E3 reveal.
Cry at me all you want saying Graphics don't matter but gameplay does but I don't care. I've already written a long post about such talk.

People have ended up pre-ordering the game due to such false advertising.
Not just on PC but also on consoles. Here is what they had on their website about a week back:
8a26e058_watchdogs60fpsps4.jpeg

Here is what they have now:
ba7fcc0d_watchdogsPS4changed.PNG

Along with this blog post:
The game also looks great on both generations of consoles. On new-gen systems the game will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on Xbox One, at 30 frames-per-second on both consoles.


I don't think I need to talk of the graphics comparison from E3.
Everyone knows of it already but still here goes:
ib2GPAb613YLQN.png

adsad.png

For more just play their trailers in HD and you will see the difference easily.
I understand the footage from E3 is not final product and always changes but damn that is what got me and most people interested in the game in the first place. The blast of the petrol pump was the best explosion I had seen in any game but now explosions dont look any good.
No matter what the excuse is, it doesn't change the fact that it was misleading. You can be the one who doesn't care for graphics at all but just gameplay but I do. If you don't care for graphics then I'll make you a dont_watch_dogs in pac-man graphics with same gameplay. That should be fine for you if you don't care for graphics right?

It's not that I hate Ubisoft, I actually love them but the truth is what it is.
They make awesome games and I love their Assassin's Creed Franchise. It's my favourite franchise of all times. AC-3 and 4 did have bugs/performance issues during time of release (For AMD cpu's only, frames drop to 40's in city areas no matter the settings) but they get fixed later.
They did something similar with Assassin's Creed 3 where most the things shown in preview were removed from the final game. Like the stealth system. In preview you would hit 1 and others would take time to notice but in final game they all went on alert almost instantly.
I'm excited for Assassin's Creed Unity, but Watch_Dogs, nahh..
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Thu May 15, 2014 11:02 pm

every game developer does it. I KNEW it, that there's something fucking wrong, graphic cards they require are so crap, now i realize WHY lol, cuz they never had the plan to release it on so high graphics.

BUT ..
where did you get those screenshots? they look like Modded GTA to be honest, doesn't look like watch dogs at all.
AND it seems like bloom and fog / motion blur is turned off on one of the screenshots. Either way, I think things like "sweetFX" can turn it back into what it was / should be.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but i think there's something fishy going on with those screenshots. I've seen the gameplay they released, why would they change it?! it runs fine on console .. i see no reason why they would crap it up, since it was running perfectly. I think these screenshots are fake / misleading by some haters, not sure tho.
Trailer is one thing, but there are 2-3 long gameplays on youtube, where they actually play the game, it isn't a trailer. I just don't see any reason why they would change the graphics after this gameplay.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Fri May 16, 2014 2:42 am

The pics I posted are screenshots I took from their videos on their youtube channel.
The text screenshots about console / PS4 running in 1080p at 60fps is from their website.
It looks worse than modded gta 4.

In most of their trailers it difficult to notice things as they are fast paced but just pause it on HD for a second and compare to the original E3 release. You will notice the difference right away. Also in gameplay videos at first you won't notice much difference but if you look for it you will.
I even compared what they call "focus". It was explained in one of their gameplay videos and this is how it used to look:
vlcsnap-00002.png

Now compare it to the one in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HbBxtmCCaI
It's after a few minutes in when you go in the area to hack.
Difference is HUGE if you actually watch both videos side by side.

My point is that if I was interested in this game I would not pre-order (and actually all future Ubisoft games from now on) based off the trailers or their gameplay videos.
I would wait for users to upload some real gameplay footage before actually buying a game.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Fri May 16, 2014 5:39 am

whole idea of pre-ordering is to get the video out as soon as possible :)
I'm still not convinced about graphics, since you do not know how it looks like on PC, maybe those are just some low-end screens.
Consoles suck anyway, i compared TDU2 PS3 and PC, difference is huuuuuge.
Also don't always trust youtube videos, since youtube messes up quality a lot if they don't know how to make videos, just because its Ubisoft, does not mean they know everything about youtube quality + they might be playing on low graphics, as i mentioned.

I pre-ordered digital deluxe edition, will see on 27th :)
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Fri May 16, 2014 8:20 pm

I didn't know you pre-ordered it.

It's not just texture difference but you can just tell the difference in movement and effects and overall feel of it. One video is just better than the other. I don't understand why would they showcase the game on low settings? I'm sure they have powerfull enough PC's to test their games at full settings. Why would they release gameplay previews in low settings? doesn't makes sense unless they wish to just show low then later release a trailer in high settings just to show what "progress" they made.

True can't compare PC to consoles as PC is already better but even more coz the PC version will have Nvidia only features just like Assassin's Creed 4, which does make a huge difference when you turn them on / off. But what I've compared is PC to PC and I see nice amount of difference even on the faces of characters.

We won't really know the exact difference there is till its out but I'm sure this is the same thing which happened with Assassin's Creed 3 and we can count it as misleading.
So anyone looking for pre-order just coz the game looks good in videos, be carefull with your money.

_
With that said they are going all out on the advertising. The latest video they uploaded is pretty awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hpU_Neg1KA
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Sat May 17, 2014 4:15 am

it's because showcase was on console, im quite sure of it.
will see in 10 days :)
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Tue May 20, 2014 10:54 pm

1 week to go.
More screens.
watch_dogs_screenshot_gameplay_37_by_legan666-d6fdzno.png

322cbe71_.jpg


Jonathan Morin, Creative Director of Watch_Dogs, has revealed some additional information about the PC specs requirements for Ubisoft’s upcoming open-world title. According to Morin, dual-cores CPUs will not be able to run Watch_Dogs (so it will be interesting to see how our simulated dual-core system will behave).

Not only that, but the game may not even boot if PC gamers are not equipped with 6GB of RAM. When a fan asked Morin whether the game would run on his PC system that was equipped with 4GB of RAM, Morin replied and said that he should climb it up to 6GB. "The main issue is your ram. If you climb it up to 6 you should be able to run the game at low settings."

Morin also claimed that a GTX670 will be able to run the game at Ultra settings, provided the CPU does not bottleneck the GPU. But what CPU is ideal for Ultra settings? Morin stated that every CPU that scores above 9000 points at Intel’s PassMark will be able to run the game at max settings.

Morin has also stated that users with CPUs similar to Intel i5-3470 will be able to run the game at medium or high settings, as that CPU will bottleneck the game.

All in all, it appears that Watch_Dogs will be a CPU bound title. Question now is whether Nvidia’s CPU driver optimizations will work on this title, and whether Watch_Dogs will stress all four CPU cores of a quad-core CPU.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Wed May 21, 2014 1:04 am

From my experience, EVERY game's recommended settings are still way too low, it should have MINIMUM, RECOMMENDED and GAMING EXPERIENCE requirements.
I highly doubt that GTX670 will run this game on ultra/max.

I got 9006 score in that test, i guess it means i can run it on ultra? furthermore, my CPU beats most of i7s with ease, regardless of what intel fankiddies say.
My FX8350 is almost same as i7-3770K @ 3.5ghz, with little overclock and closing all background apps i'd easily beat the crap out of 3770k.
But damn .. 12-core Xeons are INSANE! They score 17000-18000.

Anyway, those screens look a lot better, pretty much what I expected.
What i don't understand, what devs use to fucking test games on? If i would be developer, i would get 3 AMD machines and 3 Intel machines and just test the game on each, low end pc, mid and high end PC, that simple.

Where High-End has GTX680 SLI (so i can use SLI to know how well it runs on GTX690) and mid range has like GTX660 or GTX670 and low end would have GTX560 or even 550. and CPUs would be dual-core, with 4gb ram, quad core with 8gb ram and 8-core with 16gb ram. Just run the fucking game on those machines and post results .. THAT SIMPLE!
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Wed May 21, 2014 3:23 pm

Knowing it's Ubi the game won't be running any good during the first week of it's launch.

Ubi have a good history of going wrong on AMD cpu's with Assassin's Creed 3 and 4, (but there was no problem on Far Cry 3 I think?). So can't really say what will be enough even if it passes the score. We need to wait for real tests because as you said I also have no idea what devs test it on. I guess they never do tests and just throw out these recommended settings and minimum requirements out of their head with guess work based on the run of game on 1 type of machine.

Note that i7-3770 @ 3.5ghz would get a 9500+ score on passmark. To get that much on FX-8350, you need to overclock it to 4.5ghz. That's a 1ghz difference right there.
Your cpu can beat most i7s because there are about 20 i7's in mid-range category while your fx-8350 is a high end cpu.
High end i7 would be:
i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz
i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz
i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz
These 3 will probably beat fx-8350 even at all core use. As for individual core performance, most i5s and i7s would be better.

In older games like gta 4 the fx-8350 would probably perform a bit slower than i5-4670k. But faster in only those apps or games which could use more than 4 cores properly. This is the case with Watch Dogs I think. It is able to use 6 of them properly.

But all in all this is just guess work. We need to wait for some real tests since there won't be any benchmark tool for watch dogs.

EDIT: The map of Watch Dogs is much, much smaller than GTA V map. Remember gta 5 ran on ps3 and 360.
Watch Dogs map is just a little 30-40% bigger than gta 4 map. But really map size doesn't matter as long as the city is alive(which it is). Unlike gta 5 where you just feel so lonely roaming around, Watch Dogs is more populated. That's why the 6gb Ram requirement I guess.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Thu May 22, 2014 4:19 am

FX-8350 is nearly equal to i7-4770k, my CPU got 9006 score with tons of background apps running, im positive that i would get 9500 by just closing everything and 9600-9700 if i clock it from 4.16ghz to 4.2ghz. It's a great CPU.

Also you're wrong about Ubisoft, I've never had any issues with any Ubisoft games, AC series is something different, i think some other companies were involved. Splinter Cell series have never had issues and it runs like a dream. So did Rainbow Six series.
Far Cry 2 and 3 are also fine.
It's just that Ubisoft is not one person, they release more than 1 game a year, that alone says that different teams work on different things and just because it is "Ubisoft" does not mean its made by same people. Story and idea is probably made by same people (ones who are in charge), but programming is done by various idiots who barely even speak english. That's where that crappy shit comes from. I guess AC series was programmed by incompetent idiots.

Watch Dogs is something that will take gaming to next level, i highly doubt they take any risks by hiring some monkeys, it will be great.

Map size is just something that they can't get right anywhere ... they're too fucking worried about disk space. Just make it 100gb and get it over with you idiots, that's what pisses me off .. they just don't want to make the leap from 10-20gb games to 100gb, it just has to go by 1gb per 1-2 year .. does it?!
Remember when games were on CDs? Metal Gear Solid being one of the first that had 2 CDs.
Red Alert 2 had 4 i think ..etc, but they kept on going SLOOOOWLYYYY up. from 600mb .. to like 800mb (over 2 CDs).
Same shit nowdays, they just add 1-2gb to games per 1-2 year, just fucking make a game and stop worrying about the disk space, 1TB HDD costs less than a fucking game!!! anyone who can afford Watch Dogs can surely buy additional 1tb drive....
even with 100gb size, you could install 10 games on that drive! So instead of buying 10 games, you would buy 9 games + drive, i don't think there would be anyone who would whine over this, they'd be happy that game has lot more content.

If i were game developer, first i would remove all other languages from the game, those idiotic cutscenes and audio in some poodle-noodle languages is what eats the space and leaves less for the content.
If they really feel that they MUST add some poodly-noodly languages, then do it as SUBTITLES! If you don't speak english, don't use internet and don't play games .. that simple. Just get over it, i think its just matter of time when english becomes world wide language anyway, 20 years ago people barely spoke english, nowdays a good 80% of people who use internet speak english on acceptable level, if game devs would stop wasting their time and game space on languages, then even more would learn the language.


aaanyyywayyy, as about system requirements, this is a complete mystery to me, i haven't seen a single game that has proper system requirements. I just don't get it .. do they really push those requirements from their head without any testing at all? that's just idiotic.
aaand RAM too, just get it over with you idiots, do it 8gb minimum. almost every gaming rig has 8-16gb nowdays, just USE IT!

but at the end, it all comes down to MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They're scared that no1 would buy the game if those gamer-wannabe-kiddie-panties can't play it on their toasters.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Thu May 22, 2014 6:38 am

Im not saying fx8350 is bad. It's pretty good for overclockers. FX8350 wont get 9500+ score till its running at 4.4ghz atleast. It can beat 4770k at gaming sometimes by 10-15fps when settings are on max but that's when fx8350 is running at 4.5ghz while i7-4770k at stock. Imagine what it will be if i7 is overclocked as well but then theres also the point of money so who have the cash to spend will spend. For watch dogs according to the info thats out(Which most probably is just talk, I have 10% trust in what's said about the game till now by Ubisoft - that's why the topic name) there I think i7-4770k will be better choice as it will perform much better on individual cores and the game isn't going to use the 8 any good.

It's not all of AC series which HAD the problem. Just 3 and 4. AC 2 had issues with mouse control but it was no fun with mouse anyways so gamepad was a must for AC 2.
AC Liberation came after AC4 and it runs so damn well with graphics almost the same as 4.
I know different people work on different titles. They have computers you can hack in AC 4 and some of them have info of Ubisoft like upcoming games, who's working on what etc. I saw how ctOS works in Watch Dogs in the articles in computers of AC 4.
Maybe they changed people even among the same franchise? Like AC 1, 2, brotherhood and revelations was done by some but then from 3 onwards someone else took over who messed things up?

Watch Dogs will be great, no doubt about it but it won't be perfect. I'm expecting major slowdowns in some parts of the game's city no matter how powerfull the PC.

Languages indeed take shit ton of space. But problem is they just can't remove them. What they can do is release the languages they usually do as different version for different countries with various languages. Like places where they speak Spanish, they can release Spanish version with Spanish + English. Places which speak none of the the alternate languages can have just English. I have never used any other language than English in my games so its always wasted space but in all they just dont CARE. Releasing all in one and it taking space on our HDD means nothing to them and makes job easier for them.
I would have no problem with different language even if not English but English Subtitles. But this is just me. Guess they just can't risk to try new things.

System requirements will probably stay mystery always. But personally I don't think they really test. Different devs would do it differently though. Capcom released RE4 HD recently and it was full of shit ton of bugs. Even simple things as game getting locked to 30fps when reloading. If they didn't even notice this then obviously they didn't even test it.

but at the end, it all comes down to MONEY $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. They're scared that no1 would buy the game if those gamer-wannabe-kiddie-panties can't play it on their toasters.

That probably is the reason they toned the graphics for Watch Dogs down if they didnt intend to do advertising with false high end graphics.
They wanna target large amount of people instead of just people with expensive high end pc's.

EDIT:
GS streamed gameplay for 1 hour and it showed first person / cockpit view while driving. It's not a must, just a choice which I don't think was revealed before.
Also game has been leaked on torrents for ps3 and xbox 360. Not that it matters but just mentioning it for people who never stops screaming "You all PC GAMERS ARE PIRATES!!!!"
4 Days to go for the game.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Sat May 24, 2014 3:49 am

PC Low / Ultra comparison.
Watch-Dogs-Graphics-Comparison-1.jpg

Watch-Dogs-Graphics-Comparison-2.jpg

Watch-Dogs-Graphics-Comparison-3.jpg

Watch-Dogs-Graphics-Comparison-4.jpg
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Sat May 24, 2014 4:10 pm

dude ... stop looking at some RETARDS who don't even know how to make a screenshot, if you're comparing graphics, you NEVER make a fucking .jpg, because .jpg alone will be enough to distort graphics into something else, you gotta use .png as original and use some tool that makes them "as is" and will not compress the screenshots. Most tools will always compress the screenshots to save space, cuz 1080p .png can take like 5-10mb easy.

That said, you sure they actually use ULTRA textures? cuz now that i have the game, i realized that 680 is NOT enough to run on ultra, they lied like shit, they said 670 runs on ultra. ok ok well maybe they didn't lie exactly, cuz there are 4gb 680s too, problem is that ultra textures need 3gb vram and it truly used up all of my 2gb vram while everything on ultra and textures on high (needs 2gb).
Once i get my other 680 refunded, i'll get a new 680 and run them in non SLI mode so that i have 4gb total vram, then i can crank it up on ultra textures and see if there's any difference.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Sat May 24, 2014 10:29 pm

Yes they are using ultra textures. On their site they have full size.
My friend have Zotac gtx 670 4gb and yeah Ultra do need 3gb vram:
wd.png


Even at HIGH actually its taking a bit over 2gb vram.

I am not sure about the difference. Really sometimes I see the difference and sometimes I dont. During Night or Rain its easier to spot the difference.

At some places the game just looks insanely good and some places it just feels like console graphics. The Rain / Water really makes it look like a real next-gen (the thing I'm referring to as insanely good).
I just have this jpeg, no png as it was over 12 mb:
dec48cc3_ibhA2EBRgLO8xY.jpeg


Oh well and as I said earlier its Ubisoft so I am guessing for the first week it will be laggy specially on amd(won't use your cpu power).
How many fps are you getting with everything max you can go with 2gb vram?
I am guessing - 40's even with a gtx 680?

Personally I thought that this was just Nvidia trying to get people to buy 3gb+ cards but then theres also AMD with 3gb cards priced lesser than Nvidia's 2gb cards so I am not sure till I know how is the game performing on similar AMD cards with 3gb VRAM.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Sun May 25, 2014 6:43 am

http://youtu.be/N-yibH0MzHA < Rain / Water effects.

I can set it onto Ultra with 2gb vram, no problem, but i do feel some spikes, cuz it can't load textures that fast, but i didn't notice any difference tho. ultra and high look same to me, maybe side by side there would be difference.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Sun May 25, 2014 5:13 pm

But how much fps are you getting?
I wanna compare with i5's myself and see what's doing better in this game.
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Mon May 26, 2014 1:38 am

50 - 75, but i didn't have everything on ultra tho, shadows were high i think and that ambient occlosion was in middle somewhere. Also recording or not, it won't go over 75 for some reason.
However it uses only 50% of my CPU, so clearly that shit about it needing quad core at minimum is bullshit, as usual, devs don't know what they talking about. Soapy said that he runs it with dual core.

Game devs are just afraid to do the leap, that's it. I will try it on my other PC, with quad core 3.6ghz, 4gb ram and GTX550Ti, im sure it will run.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Mon May 26, 2014 4:27 am

That's the trouble with AC4 as well. It won't use your hardware.

Still it's good for you to get 50+ but people with weaker hardware will struggle since game will use around half of their hardware.
But patches will come when game is released and it will all work good then I guess even on Dual-Cores.

On my friend's i5-4670 @3.4ghz with AMD R9 270x the fps are-

On High:
Min 47
Max 102

On Ultra:
Min 25
Max 93
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby Sethioz » Mon May 26, 2014 6:51 am

Biggest disappointment about Watch Dogs, is that it was suppose to be yber on the hardware, but it just isn't. It's still very playable on crap hardware. I was hoping they take the leap and truly make it so good that it won't run on dual cores, i mean it would run on any pc, but on dual core you would get like 1-5fps.
I bet i can run this on GTX550Ti on acceptable levels @ 720p, maybe even 1080p (but cant bother hooking it up to my primary monitors)

but no, there is no problem. It uses 50% cpu because it simply does not need more.
So any CPU that gets 4500 points on intel's passmark will run it on ultra above 30fps.
User avatar
Sethioz
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 4757
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:11 pm
Location: unknown

Re: Watch_Dogs - Ubisoft False Advertising / Misleading

Postby KEN » Mon May 26, 2014 4:35 pm

Is the game stuttering for you while driving fast in high density area?
Your cpu might be bottlenecking. 2500k is getting all its 4 cores pushed to the max and getting 100+ fps sometimes with a cheap amd card.

Watch Dogs ready Nvidia Drivers out: http://uk.download.nvidia.com/Windows/3 ... l-whql.exe
User avatar
KEN
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:11 am

Next

Return to Gaming - Discussions / Walkthroughs / News / Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron